alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20412 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAUL ERNESTO QUINTANILLA MENDOZA, also known as Eric Ernesto Quintanilla, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-703-1

-------------------- February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * Raul Ernesto Quintanilla Mendoza appeals his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry into the United States following a prior deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). For the following reasons, we affirm. Mendoza’s first argument that his prior felony conviction is an element of the offense rather than a sentencing factor is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224,No. 00-20412 -2- 235 (1998). He concedes as much, but he raises the issue to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. His second argument is that the indictment was deficient because it failed to allege any mens rea. We rejected such an argument in a case involving a nearly identical indictment. See United States v. Guzman-Ocampo , 236 F.3d 233, 239 (5th Cir. 2000). For the reasons set forth in that case, we conclude that the indictment sufficiently apprised Mendoza of the nature of the charges against him. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
# C_2020378EN.01003301.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials)

(Case T-879/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials - Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL - Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial, COMPAL essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ludwig Manfred Jacob (Heidesheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2019 (Case R 1025/2019 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Mr Jacob.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA to pay the costs relating to the present action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA to pay the costs relating to the present action.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---
# C_2019288EN.01001302.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v WS

(Case C-302/19)

(2019/C 288/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Respondent and cross-appellant: WS

Question referred

Should Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 (1) and the principle of equal treatment for holders of single permits to reside and work and national citizens be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation under which, unlike the provisions laid down for nationals of the Member State, the family members of a worker with a single permit from a third country are excluded when determining the members of the family unit, for the purpose of calculating the family unit allowance, where those family members live in the third country of origin?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 4.1

                            Form of Share Certificate

               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

                                     [LOGO]

                    CUSIP NO. [sample] FARMACIA Corporation

                   AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 75,000,000 SHARES
                          PAR VALUE: $0.00001 PER SHARE

                               THIS CERTIFIES THAT

                                    [SAMPLE]

                   IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF __________________

Shares of FARMACIA CORPORATION Common Stock transferable on the books of the
Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned
by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.

Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of
its duly authorized officers.

Dated:

------------------------------                    ------------------------------
Secretary                                         President

                 [FARMACIA CORPORATION CORPORATE SEAL NEVADA]

"The shares represented by this certificate have not been registered under the
Securities Act of 1933. The shares have been acquired for investment and may not
be offered, sold, or otherwise transferred in the absence of an effective
registration statement for the shares under the Securities Act of 1933, or a
prior opinion of counsel satisfactory to the issuer, that registration is not
required under the Act."

Signature must be guaranteed by a firm which is a member of a registered
national stock exchange, or by a bank (other than a savings bank), or a trust
company. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face
of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations.

Additional abbreviations may also be used though not on the above list.
<PAGE>
For Value Received, _______ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Please print or typewrite name and address, including zip code or assignee)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                     Shares
----------------------------------------------------

of the capital stock represented by the within certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint

                                                     Attorney
----------------------------------------------------

to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with
full power of substitution in the premises.

Dated:
      -------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as
written upon the face of the certificate in every particular without alteration
or enlargement or any change whatever
# C_2019206EN.01009401.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/94

---

Action brought on 18 April 2019 — nanoPET Pharma v EUIPO — Miltenyi Biotec (viscover)

(Case T-264/19)

(2019/C 206/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: nanoPET Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miltenyi Biotec GmbH (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘viscover’ — EU trade mark No 9 197 732

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 in Case R 1288/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50038

Summary Calendar

ROGELIO ROSAS,JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-97-CV-402)

October 2, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rogelio M. Rosas, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his complaint for judicial

review of the decision of the Commissio ner of Social Security which denied his

claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Rosas contends that the

Administrative Law Judge erred in determining that his medical condition does not

significantly interfere wit h his daily activities. He further contends that the ALJ

posed an inadequate hypothetical question to the vocational expert. Rosas did not1 Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415 (5 th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2 Rosas v. Cal lahan , No. SA-97-CA-0402 (W.D.Tex. October 14, 1997 and

November 24, 1997).

2 raise these issues in objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and the

district court did not engage in a de novo review. We must, therefore, review these

contentions for plain error. 1

Our review of the record and the briefs of the parties discloses no error, plain

or otherwise, and for essentially the re asons relied upon by the district court we

now AFFIRM. 2
# C_2021242EN.01002202.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Al Tarazi v Council

(Case T-260/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Rights of defence - Right to property - Right to exercise an economic activity - Right to respect for private and family life - Proportionality)

(2021/C 242/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mazen Al Tarazi (Shuwaikh, Kuwait) (represented by: G. Beck, A. Khan, R. Wilcox, Barristers, and S. Patel, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4) in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Mazen Al-Tarazi to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Mazen Al-Tarazi to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Stephan Kuppenheimer, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Merrill Lynch
Depositor, Inc., on behalf of PreferredPLUS Trust Series ELP-1;

         2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

         4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement
and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee
have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

         5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
compliance by the depositor or trustee with the minimum servicing or similar
standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling
or servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

         In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of
New York and its officers and agents.


                                           /s/ Stephan Kuppenheimer
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Stephan Kuppenheimer
Date: March 27, 2006                       President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1331

THOMAS T. SCAMBOS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMPUTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED; AL

DEMAGNUS; SHARON DEMAGNUS; ROSENBERG, PROUT,

FUNK & GREENBERG; EUGENE FUNK; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, jointly and severally, in

their individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-3288-PJM)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 21, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Thomas T. Scambos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Gerard Joseph Gaeng,

Shawn Jeffrey Sefret, ROSENBERG, PROUTT, FUNK & GREENBERG, L.L.P.,

Baltimore, Maryland; Alvin Ira Frederick, ECCLESTON & WOLF,

Baltimore, Maryland; Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney,

Albert David Copperthite, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his employment discrimination and civil rights action. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Scambos v. Computer Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. CA-97-3288-PJM

(D. Md. Jan. 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ervin Bernard EARL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10080

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 15, 2009.

Barre C. Dumas, Dumas & McPhail, L.L.C., Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

David Andrew Sigler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

*382PER CURIAM:

Barre C. Dumas, appointed counsel for Ervin Bernard Earl, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Earl’s convictions are AFFIRMED. We note, however, that the judgment and the order memorializing the jury’s verdict incorrectly substitute 18 U.S.C. § 1853 for 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Therefore, we VACATE and REMAND with instructions that the district court correct the judgment and the order memorializing the jury’s verdict by replacing 18 U.S.C. § 1853 with 18 U.S.C. § 1513.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 32 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 32

    To authorize the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make 
technical corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 470, an Act to further 
 allocate and expand the availability of hydroelectric power generated 
                 at Hoover Dam, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 18, 2011

 Mr. Bingaman submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    To authorize the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make 
technical corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 470, an Act to further 
 allocate and expand the availability of hydroelectric power generated 
                 at Hoover Dam, and for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 470) an Act to further 
allocate and expand the availability of hydroelectric power generated 
at Hoover Dam, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall make the following corrections:
            (1) In the second sentence of section 105(a)(2)(B) of the 
        Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619(a)) (as added by 
        section 2(d)), strike ``General'' and insert ``Conformed 
        General''.
            (2) In section 2(e), strike ``as redesignated as'' and 
        insert ``as redesignated by''.
            (3) In section 2(f), strike ``as redesignated as'' and 
        insert ``as redesignated by''.
            (4) In section 2(g), strike ``as redesignated as'' and 
        insert ``as redesignated by''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Vinny Petulla Contracting Corp., Respondent, v Lewis Ranieri, Defendant, and Lunz Development Corp. et al., Appellants.

[941 NYS2d 659]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and on an account stated, the defendants Lunz *752Development Corp. and Joseph Lunz appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated May 26, 2011, which denied their motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of the same court dated March 8, 2011, entered upon their default in appearing or answering, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate their default in appearing or answering, and, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) for leave to serve and file a late answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Lunz Development Corp. and Joseph Lunz, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate the judgment dated March 8, 2011, pursuant to 5015 (a) (1) to vacate their default in appearing or answering, and, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) for leave to serve and file a late answer is granted.

The Nassau County Clerk did not have the authority to enter a judgment against the appellant pursuant to CPLR 3215 (a), since, under the circumstances of this case, the damages sought against the appellants were not for a “sum certain” and could not be determined without extrinsic proof *(see Reynolds Sec. v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co.,*44 NY2d 568, 572-573 [1978]; *Stephan B. Gleich & Assoc. v Gritsipis,*87 AD3d 216, 222-224 [2011]; *Pikulin v Mikshakov,*258 AD2d 450, 451 [1999]; *Hotel Syracuse, Inc. v Brainard,*256 App Div 1055 [1939]). In light of the foregoing, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellants’ motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment dated March 8, 2011, which was entered upon their default in appearing or answering.

Moreover, in light of the lack of any prejudice to the plaintiff resulting from the short delay by the appellants in appearing in this action, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the appellants’ default in appearing and answering should have been excused *(see*CPLR 2004, 3012 [d]; *Zeccola & Selinger, LLC v Horowitz,*88 AD3d 992, 993 [2011]; *Feder v Eline Capital Corp.,*80 AD3d 554, 555 [2011]; *Schonfeld v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp.,*29 AD3d 673, 674 [2006]; *Yonkers Rib House, Inc. v 1789 Cent. Park Corp.,*19 AD3d 687, 688 [2005]). Accordingly, those branches of the appellants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate their default in appearing and answering and, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) for leave to serve and file a late answer should have been granted. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.